For that you'd need less dumb folk in the voting public. So I'd say, making the politicians taking their responsibility serious again is the way to go.

Addendum
It could also get more people interested in politics again.

Click to expand...

Thousand apologies that I beg to disagree, but <i>making the voters taking their responsibility serious again</i> is the way to go. The complete separation of the voting decisions from the voting consequences of it is the bigest problem of the democrature^Wdemocracy now.

(And now back to generating taxable income, so that after stealing^Wtaxing to death there will at least remain some money to buy a Pyra.)

Thousand apologies that I beg to disagree, but <i>making the voters taking their responsibility serious again</i> is the way to go. The complete separation of the voting decisions from the voting consequences of it is the bigest problem of the democrature^Wdemocracy now.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but I think the voting public is mainly made up of dumb people, thus no good angle for attack here. Still, I think there are enough intelligent people around to make up some functional government. And, if that would be in place, they could go and make the public bright again. With that your demands should be covered, too.

Wikipedia has a named carve out, as far as I've been reading about article 13 (I'm not up to speed on the other article being discussed here, but I'd have expected it to be the same). That does stop the new wikipedia starting up, once it turns out that Jimmy was just a megalomaniac in disguise all along, but for the market as it is today it's designed to hit google and very little else.

I wonder what it means for our number image thread personally. Some image providers do block deep linking, but not so many as is.

When considering regulatin' the 'net, consider what those rules would look like in the 'real world'.

If a person or business posts pictures of their products on their building's physical wall or fence (in the public way), anyone walking by should be well entitled to snap a picture of that (fair use), which the photographer then owns the rights to (for that image) and can post on their own physical wall or fence (work product example).
(Creating a copy of material posted to a public website.)

Consider a photographer taking a picture of Times Square in New York and publishing that in a coffee table picture book. She has just captured the trademarked logos of hundreds of companies and the copyrighted content of dozens of video producers. Would she be required to negotiate content licenses with every individual one or put big black redaction bars in the image covering those she could not?

Alternatively, someone walking buy could scribble down a note with the address of the business and how many feet in from the street corner the individual image is then pass those image location directions to someone else walking down the street.
(Creating and sharing a URL.)

Yes, but from the creators point of view you can make similar arguments which conflict with yours. Say your an artist; if you make a painting with acrylic and paper or oil paints and canvas, it's yours and anyone copying it using similar materials cannot pass if off as their own, or another genuine copy of your art. Just because you use a stylus and digitiser and a computer screen, why should the rules be any different when you post a copy for people to see?

Yes, but from the creators point of view you can make similar arguments which conflict with yours. Say your an artist; if you make a painting with acrylic and paper or oil paints and canvas, it's yours and anyone copying it using similar materials cannot pass if off as their own, or another genuine copy of your art. Just because you use a stylus and digitiser and a computer screen, why should the rules be any different when you post a copy for people to see?

Click to expand...

If the artist posts that art in the public street facing window of their shop, they have entered it into the public way by choice in a manner that would allow for capture and potential reproduction. The artist still owns the rights to the original item. If they had alternatively chosen to display it in a gallery with restrictive photographic rules, that is their choice as well.

Note in my examples that it is the content owner's rights to decide IF they place something in a public space, there are expectations of incidental and direct capture and potential re-use. There are other special rules around re-use and fair-use in the physical world. One is that citations that link to the original are encouraged. Another is basically that people should not try to re-sell other people's stuff.

But, the rules of the physical world can still be applied to the digital. What the artist places for public view, in the resolution they present, should be expected to be captured and or referenced, positively or negatively, by a broad public audience not under the artist's control.

What the artist places for public view, in the resolution they present, should be expected to be captured and or referenced, positively or negatively, by a broad public audience not under the artist's control.

Click to expand...

I still think it depends. For example, what if it is only viewable after paying admittance? What if you are a moviestar, and your body is your brand, and you go and pick your newspaper in bunnyshorts, scratching your bum and a paparazzi takes a picture of that...

I still think it depends. For example, what if it is only viewable after paying admittance? What if you are a moviestar, and your body is your brand, and you go and pick your newspaper in bunnyshorts, scratching your bum and a paparazzi takes a picture of that...